(SS) Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 15

ORDER on Stipulation for Award of Attorney Fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) 14 signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 3/10/2025. (Deputy Clerk TEL)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AMADOR LUIS MARTINEZ, III,

12

Plaintiff,

ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR AWARD
OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE
EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28
U.S.C. § 2412(d)

v.

13
14

Case No. 1:24-cv-01256-CDB (SS)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
(Doc. 14)
Defendant.

15
16
17
18

Pending before the Court is the stipulated request of Plaintiff Amador Luis Martinez, III

19

(“Plaintiff”) for the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act

20

(“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), in the amount of $2,000.00 to counsel for Plaintiff, Steven

21

Gilbert Rosales.1 (Doc. 14).

22

The parties agree that an award of attorney’s fees to counsel for Plaintiff should be made

23

payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not

24

owe a federal debt, then the Commissioner shall cause the payment of fees, expenses, and costs

25

to be made directly to Plaintiff’s counsel, Steven Gilbert Rosales. Id. at 2.

26

On December 18, 2024, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated motion for voluntary

27
28

Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. magistrate judge for all
proceedings in this action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. 9).
1

1

1

remand and remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the

2

Commissioner for further proceedings. (Doc. 12). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc.

3

13). On March 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed the pending stipulation for attorney fees as a prevailing

4

party. (Doc. 14). See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a

5

party who prevails with a sentence-four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing

6

party). Plaintiff’s filing is timely. Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2007). The

7

Commissioner does not oppose the requested relief. Id.

8

The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in

9

civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28

10

U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing

11

party unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special

12

circumstances make such an award unjust.” Id. Here, the government did not show its position

13

was substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would

14

make an award unjust.

15

request. See Sanchez v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-cv-01081-SKO, 2018 WL 509817, at *2 (E.D. Cal.

16

Jan. 23, 2018) (finding position of the government was not substantially justified in view of the

17

Commissioner’s assent to remand); Knyazhina v. Colvin, No. 2:12–cv–2726 DAD, 2014 WL

18

5324302, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014) (same).

Moreover, the government does not oppose Plaintiff’s stipulated

19

Plaintiff requests an award of $2,000.00 in EAJA fees. (Doc. 14). The Ninth Circuit

20

maintains a list of the statutory maximum hourly rates authorized by the EAJA, adjusted for

21

increases in the cost of living, on its website. See Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876-

22

77 (9th Cir. 2005).

23

maximum rate,2 the requested award would amount to approximately eight hours of attorney

24

time (not accounting for any paralegal time expended). The Court finds this reasonable and

25

commensurate with the number of hours an attorney would need to have spent reviewing the

26

certified administrative record in this case (approximately 1,659 pages; Doc. 10) and obtaining

27
28

Even assuming Plaintiff’s counsel seeks the most recent published

2

Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates/ (last visited March 10,
2025).
2

1

stipulations for voluntary remand and for the award of EAJA fees. (Docs. 11, 14). With

2

respect to the results obtained, Plaintiff’s counsel obtained a favorable judgment remanding the

3

case for further proceedings. (Docs. 12, 13).

4

EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury

5

Offset Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010).

6

Commissioner determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff’s EAJA fees are not

7

subject to any offset allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise

8

transmitted to Plaintiff’s counsel.3

9
10

If the

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s stipulated request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 14) is
GRANTED; and

11
12

2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney’s fees

13

in the amount of $2,000.00, pursuant to the terms set forth in the parties’ stipulation.

14

(Doc. 14).

15

Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government

16

shall cause the payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be made directly to Plaintiff’s

17

counsel, as set forth in the stipulation.

Fees shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the

18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
19

Dated:

March 10, 2025

___________________

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

The parties’ stipulation provides that they do not stipulate whether “counsel for the by
[Client-Last
Name] has a cognizable lien” in this respect (Doc. 14 at n.1); the Court presumes
28
this language constitutes an inadvertent drafting error.
3

3